Take a look at Landin's papers and especially ISWIM ("The next 700 programming
languages")
You don't so much want to learn Lisp as to learn "the idea of Lisp"
Cheers,
Alan
>
>From: karl ramberg
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing
>Sent: Wednesday, August 17,
On 8/17/2011 2:15 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
May I join in :-) ?
This is my first post here, so hello everybody. In one sentence, I like
computing (that's introduction).
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, BGB wrote:
I once had a good experience using Scheme, which has influenced most of my
later efforts (despi
May I join in :-) ?
This is my first post here, so hello everybody. In one sentence, I like
computing (that's introduction).
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, BGB wrote:
> I once had a good experience using Scheme, which has influenced most of my
> later efforts (despite me generally switching to a more tr
I wish you could have seen Interlisp-D running on a Dorado.
-David
-David
On Aug 17, 2011, at 12:00 PM, karl ramberg wrote:
> Hi,
> Just reading a Lisp book my self.
> Lisp seems to be very pure at the bottom level.
> The nesting in parentheses are hard to read and comprehend / debug.
> Things g
I once had a good experience using Scheme, which has influenced most of
my later efforts (despite me generally switching to a more traditional
C-family-like syntax, invoking many accusations of "blub" and similar).
I also found Self an interesting language to look at.
Lisp-style syntax does h
Hi,
Just reading a Lisp book my self.
Lisp seems to be very pure at the bottom level.
The nesting in p*arentheses* are hard to read and comprehend / debug.
Things get not so pretty when all sorts of DSL are made to make it more
powerful.
The REPL give it a kind of wing clipped aura; there is more t
Hi Sean,
Two books that I like quite a lot are:
"Anatomy of Lisp" by John Allen. It's a classic from the golden age.
"Lisp in Small Pieces" by Christian Queninnec. It's a modern classic.
-David
On Aug 17, 2011, at 11:00 AM, DeNigris Sean wrote:
> Alan,
>
> While we're on the sub
Alan,
While we're on the subject, you finally got to me and I started learning LISP,
but I'm finding an entire world, rather than a cohesive language or philosophy
(Scheme - which itself has many variants, Common LISP, etc). What would you
recommend to "get it" in the way that changes your thin
Thanks, Bert.
On Aug 17, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 17.08.2011, at 17:08, Kevin Driedger wrote:
>
>> Here's a Google Doc conversion of the wayback machine version:
>> https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070516130537/http://www.dolphinharbor.org/d
On 17.08.2011, at 17:48, David Leibs wrote:
>
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>
>> There is a paper on PIE (and many other interesting systems) in
>> Barstow/Shrobe/Sandewall's "Interactive Programming Environments". Used
>> copies for 1 cent (like many "outdated" comp
I certainly wouldn't!
Cheers
Alan
>
>From: David Leibs
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing
>Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 8:48 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Extending object oriented programming in Smalltalk
>
>
>
>
>On Aug 17, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Bert Freudenberg
On Aug 17, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
> There is a paper on PIE (and many other interesting systems) in
> Barstow/Shrobe/Sandewall's "Interactive Programming Environments". Used
> copies for 1 cent (like many "outdated" computer books):
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0070038856
On 17.08.2011, at 17:08, Kevin Driedger wrote:
> Here's a Google Doc conversion of the wayback machine version:
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070516130537/http://www.dolphinharbor.org/docs/PIE%2520four%2520reports.pdf&pli=1
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:18 PM,
Here's a Google Doc conversion of the wayback machine version:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://web.archive.org/web/20070516130537/http://www.dolphinharbor.org/docs/PIE%2520four%2520reports.pdf&pli=1
Or:
http://www.dolphinharbor.org/dh/smalltalk/documents/
Look for:
An Experimental Desc
14 matches
Mail list logo
